Skip to main content

Full text of "[Report] to His Excellency, Dan K. Moore, Governor of North Carolina"

See other formats








This book must not 
be taken from the 
Library building. 

Form No. 471 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 


This report is made to you pursuant to Resolution 
Number 85 of the 1965 Session of the General Assembly entitled 

The Commission authorized by this resolution consists 
of nine members appointed as follows: Five members appointed 
by you, namely, Rep. David M. Britt, Rev. Ben C, Fisher, 
William T. Joyner, Charles F. Myers and Mrs. Elizabeth G. 
Swindell; two members appointed by the President of the 
Senate, namely. Sen. Gordon Hanes and Sen. J. Russell Kirby; 
and two members appointed by the Speaker of the House, namely. 
Rep. Lacy H. Thornburg and Rep. A. A. Zollicoffer, Jr. Pur- 
suant to your designation, Rep. David M. Britt served as chairman. 

The first meeting of the Commission was held in Raleigh 
in the Legislative Building on July 14, 1965, with all members 
present. Mrs. Swindell was elected by the Comjnission to serve 
as secretary and Mrs. P. E, Howell of Raleigh was employed to 
render clerical services to the Commission. 

At the initial meeting the members became acquainted 
with duties provided in the resolution and discussed various 
ways of approaching the work. It was unanimously decided that 
public hearings should be scheduled, at which all of the State- 
supported educational institutions affected by the law, accred- 
iting agencies, and other interested parties and organizations 
would be provided an opportunity to be heard. 


Public Hearings were held on August 11 and 12, 1965, 
and September 8 and 9, 1965, in the auditorium of the Legis- 
lative Building. They were well attended and given extensive 
coverage by newspapers, radio, and television. The transcript 
of the testimony and other documents considered by the Commis- 
sion are filed with this report. 

Under the provisions of the resolution the Commission 
was charged with the duty of making a careful, full and detailed 
study of G. S. 116-199 and G. S. 116-200 (Chapter 1207 of the 
1963 Session Laws) relating to visiting speakers at State-sup- 
ported educational institutions of higher learning, with respect 
particularly to the following: 

1. The enforcement of the statutes; 

2. The relationship, if any, between these statutes 
and the accreditation of State-supported institutions by accre- 
ditation organizations and associations; 

3. The effect on the relationship of these institutions 
with other institutions of higher learning; and 

4. The impact of the statutes as to the status, 
administration, reputation, functioning and future development 
of State-supported institutions. 

Enforcement of the Statutes 
At its initial meeting the Commission considered the 
legality of the statutes and authorized the chairman to appoint 
a subcommittee to give special study to such legality. Inasmuch 
as five members of the Commission are lawyers, the Chairman 


'«^ constituted them a subcommittee for this purpose. 



The subcommittee gave careful consideration to the 
constitutionality of the statutes and considered various 
decisions and legal memoranda on the question. Among these 
was a memorandum prepared by Deputy Attorney General Ralph 
Moody in 1963 and also a supplement thereto prepared by Mr. 
Moody at the request of the Commission . Another memorandum 
considered was that of Prof. William Van Alstyne of the Duke 
University School of Law. Mr. Moody expressed the opinion 
that the laws are constitutional and are a proper exercise 
of the police power of the State of North Carolina. Prof. 
Van Alstyne expressed the opinion that the laws are unconsti- 
tutional insofar as the Federal Constitution is concerned. 
Other memoranda and legal articles were filed with and con- 
sidered by the Commission. 

After deliberation and discussion, it was the consensus 
of the full Commission that the problems posed by these statutes 
should be approached on a much broader basis than a strictly 
legal one; therefore, no steps are recommended to determine 
the validity of the statutes. 

As to enforcement, testimony presented at the hearings 
by officials and administrators of the various educational 
institutions affected by the law revealed that they have dili- 
gently complied with the law and the Commission received no 
evidence that the law has been violated since its enactment on 
June 26, 1963. 


A large part of the inquiry of the Commission was 
directed to the matter of accreditation. At the August 
hearings Dean Emmett B. Fields of Vanderbilt University, 
Chairman of the Commission on Colleges, Southern Association 
of Colleges and Schools, Inc., and Mr. Gordon Sweet, Executive 
Director of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 
Inc., were heard and questioned in great detail. The agency 
represented by these two is the primary accrediting agency for 
all colleges and universities in North Carolina. The Officials 
of this agency take the position that these statutes "remove (s) 
from the governing boards of the State institutions of higher 
learning in North Carolina, their traditional authority to 
handle such matters with administrative discretion," and 
"raise (s) an issue of interference with the necessary authority 
of the boards". Also on the matter of accreditation, the Com- 
mission heard from Dr. Frank G. Dickey, Executive Director of 
the National Commission on Accrediting, and Dr. W. H. Plemmons, 
a former member of the said Commission on Colleges. 

We are confident that the Southern Association has done 
much to improve the quality of education in the South. However, 
this Commission is not charged with the responsibility of pass- 
ing upon the wisdom of the Association's action in this matter. 
The Commission devoted considerable time to studying the signi- 
ficance of accreditation on our State-supported colleges and 
university. Suffice it to say accreditation means much, finan- 
cially and otherwise. For any institution to lose accreditation 
would be substantially damaging. 

Relatlonship with other Institutions 

In various ways the Commission studied the effect of 
the statutes in question on the relationship of our institutions 
with other institutions of higher learning. These studies dis- 
closed that there is a closely knit bond between the educators 
of our Country. Grievances of administrators and faculties in 
one state receive the concern and support of their counterparts 
throughout the land. In fact, such grievances in one or more 
schools receive the concern and support of counterparts in other 
schools of the same state, as indicated by the "sympathetic 
reaction" to the subject statutes of the administrators and 
faculties, and even students, of several church related colleges 
and universities in North Carolina, 

The unrest resulting from the statutes in question has 
extended far beyond the eleven institutions directly affected. 
It would appear that, unless the unrest is removed, entertaining 
communists could become glamorized in our State, thereby de- 
feating one of the primary purposes of the statutes. 

Impact of Statutes 

In considering the impact of the statutes in question 
on our State-supported institutions of higher learning, we 
must consider the tangible and the intangible. The most obvious 
impact would come from loss of accreditation, if such should 
occur, inasmuch as many financial aids which our institutions 
now receive are not provided to unaccredited institutions. 
The Commission made contact with numerous federal agencies 


and private foundations and although some of the aids and 
programs provided are not dependent upon accreditation, many 
of them are, and with others accreditation would be a factor. 
For example, a R.O.T.C. program is contingent upon accreditation. 

As to the intangible, considerable prestige accompanies 
accreditation. We are convinced that many students would not 
attend any of our eleven institutions if accreditation were 
lost, due partly to increased difficulty in securing recognition 
for work done in an unaccredited institution. 

Also important is the consideration of faculty members. 
The demand for qualified faculty members far exceeds the supply 
and this promises to be the case for many years to come. Loss 
of accreditation would make it much more difficult for our 
eleven institutions to recruit and maintain adequate faculties. 


We are convinced that the people of North Carolina are 
strongly opposed to communism and all other forms of totali- 
tarianism. They are concerned about the expansion of atheistic 
communism throughout the world, and this concern is increased 
by the mortal conflict that is now raging in Viet Nam and other 
places . 

Information from J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, and other reliable sources is to the 
effect that the tempo of communist efforts in the United States 
is being speeded up and that conununists are taking advantage of 
every opportunity. There appears no doubt that the communists 
consider college and university campuses a fertile field for 


tbelr work and this has been evidenced recently by the organi- 
zation of radical clubs on campuses across the nation and the 
infiltration of communists into certain campus demonstrations 
in other parts of the Country. 

We feel that the 1963 General Assembly was sincere in 
its enactment of the statutes in question and felt that it was 
"striking a blow" for Democracy. It also appears that the Gen- 
eral Assembly was reflecting the feeling of a large segment of 
the population of North Carolina and since the enactment of 
these statutes, many people have risen to their support. 

On the other hand, it is quite evident that many members 
of the 1963 General Assembly who voted for the statutes did not 
foresee the far-reaching effects of the statutes. It is our 
Judgment that the primary objective of the General Assembly was 
to prevent communist rabble rousers and their kind from using 
the campuses of North Carolina as a forum for their evil activities 

During the public hearings held by this Commission much 
was said about communism, the appearance of speakers who were 
alleged to be members of the Communist Party, and the presence 
in the student bodies of students who individually, and by 
group activity, were active ultra-liberals. 

A careful review of this testimony indicates that these 
statements and allegations were directed primarily at the Uni- 
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, covering the period 
from 1937 to 1965. This testimony discloses that in more than 
a quarter of a century fewer than a dozen speakers from among 
the thousands who have appeared during these years were specifi- 
cally mentioned as extremists and not all of these were alleged 


to be communists. Among students, not more than five were 
singled out from among the more than 40,000 who have graduated 
from the Chapel Hill campus over this span of time. 

The testimony shows that the University would not know- 
ingly employ a member of the Communist Party in any capacity, 
and direct testimony by its officers indicates that no such 
person is employed. No evidence to the contrary was presented 
to, disclosed to, or discovered by the Commission. We also note 
that all members of the faculty and staff have formally affirmed 
their allegiance to the Constitutions of the United States and 
the State of North Carolina. We review these allegations here 
because we gave ample notice to all persons who wished to appear 
before the Commission, or felt that they had pertineht information, 
to do so. The evidence before this Commission failed to disclose 
that the faculty of the University at Chapel Hill is infiltrated 
by communists. The evidence shows that the University does not 
foster or encourage any political doctrine that would suppress 
the liberty or freedom of any individual. 

We believe that it is highly desirable that students 
have the opportunity to question, review and discuss the opinions 
of speakers representing a wide range of viewpoints. It is vital 
to our success in supporting our free society against all forms 
of totalitarianism that institutions remain free to examine these 
ideologies in a manner consistent with educational objectives. 

The evidence before us fails to justify charges of 
irresponsible radicalism at Chapel Hill. There have been and 
will always be individuals who express themselves in ways that, 
to some, are disturbing because they are unorthodox and the 

larger the Institution becomes, the more it is likely to attract 
this type of individual. 

The University of North Carolina at Chapol Hill is a 
great institution that has served the State well. Members ol 
the General Assembly and all citizens of our state are Justifi- 
ably interested in our University. There is no evidence before 
us of any plot, plan, campaign, or conspiracy by anyone to injure 
the University or any State-supported college. 

Although most of the discussion about the statutes in 
question has been related to the University at Chapel Hill, the 
impact of these statutes affects all four campuses of our Uni- 
versity as well as the eleven colleges supported by the State. 
There was no evidence before thfe Commission that a communist 
has ever appeared as a visiting speaker or otherwise at these 
other institutions. Accreditation means much to all branches 
of the University, but it means at least as much, if not more, 
to the other eleven institutions. Loss of accreditation would 
be far reaching in its damage, not only from the standpoint of 
financial benefits but also from the standpoint of attracting 
students, the transfer of credits of students, the recruitment 
of faculty members and the retention of fully dedicated teachers 
and staff members. 

The public hearings conducted by this Commission have 
provided the people of North Carolina with a wealth of infor- 
mation about our institutions and the effects of the statutes 
in question. It is the opinion of this Commission that a large 
majority of the people of our State realize the great need of 


education at all levels and that they do not favor legislation 
which will jeopardize the best educational opportunities for 
our youth. 

It is also our opinion that the trustees of our educational 
institutions should assume more responsibility for the operation 
of our institutions and should be constantly on the alert for 
anything that would be harmful to our institutions and to the 
educational programs they promote. The Trustees of our Insti- 
tutions constitute a vital link between the institutions they 
represent and the people of North Carolina, 

Finally, we conclude that education at all levels in 
North Carolina, and the continued progress and welfare of our 
State, require that the statutes in question be amended to im- 
pose responsibility for the subject matter of the statutes in 
question on the trustees of our institutions; provided , that the 
trustees give assurance of their willingness to accept this 
responsibility and particularly with regard to the subject matter 
of these statutes. 

Academic freedom requires academic responsibility. V/e 
specifically state that our recommendations should not be con- 
strued to mean that we necessarily agree with all the educators 
who appeared before this Commission on the question of academic 
freedom. The fact is that our concern about the current unrest 
in educational circles in our State leads us to the conclusion 
that the stakes are so high that responsible people, both edu- 
cators and others, must strive for some solution that will settle 
this controversy for the foreseeable future. 


The fires of intolerance will surely injure the process 
of education. To solve our problem, to quench the fires now 
burning, it is necessary that the people on one side of the con- 
troversy be more understanding and tolerant of the honest views 
of the people on the other side. We must seek mutual respect 
and a middle ground. 

To that end we direct our recommendations. 


1. Subject to Recommendation No. 2, we recommend that 
Chapter 1207 of the 1963 Session Laws be amended so as to vest 
the trustees of the institutions affected by it not only with 
the authority but also with the responsibility of adopting and 
publishing rules and precautionary measures relating to visiting 
speakers covered by said Act on the campuses of said institutions. 
We submit as a part of this report a proposed legislative bill to 
accomplish this purpose. 

2. We recommend that each of the Boards of Trustees of 
said institutions adopt the Speaker Policy hereto attached and 
made a part of this Report. 

3. In order that this important matter might be settled 
forthwith, we recommend that you, The Governor of North Carolina, 
request the boards of trustees of the affected institutions to 
assemble as soon as practicable for purpose of giving consideration 
to the aforementioned Speaker Policy, and at such time as it has 
been adopted by the said boards of all of said institutions, that 
you cause to be called an extraordinary Session of the General 


Assembly for purpose of considering amendments to Chapter 1207 
of the 1963 Session Laws as hereinbefore set forth. 

Respectfully submitted, this November 5th, 1965. 

David M. Britt, Chairman 

Elizabeth G. Swindell, Secretary 

Ben C. Fisher 

Gordon Hanes 

William T. Joyner 

J. Russell Kirby 

Charles F. Myers 

Lacy H. Thornburg 

A, A. Zollicoffer, Jr 


The Trustees recognize that this Institution, and 
every part thereof, is owned by the people of North Carolina; 
that it is operated by duly selected representatives and 
personnel for the benefit of the people of our state. 

The Trustees of this Institution are unalterably 
opposed to communism and any other ideology or form of govern- 
ment which has as its goal the destruction of our basic demo- 
cratic institutions. 

We recognize that the total program of a college or 
university is committed to an orderly process of inquiry and 
discussion, ethical and moral excellence, objective instruction, 
and respect for law. An essential part of the education of 
each student at this Institution is the opportunity to hear 
diverse viewpoints expressed by speakers properly invited to 
the campus. It is highly desirable that students have the 
opportunity to question, review and discuss the opinions of 
speakers representing a wide range of viewpoints. 

It is vital to our success in supporting our free 
society against all forms of totalitarianism that institutions 
remain free to examine these ideologies to any extent that will 
serve the educational purposes of our institutions and not the 
purposes of the enemies of our free society. 

V/e feel that the appearance as a visiting speaker on 
our campus of one who was prohibited under Chapter 1207 of the 
1963 Session Laws (The Speaker Ban Law) or who advocates any 


ideology or form of government which is wholly alien to our 
basic democratic institutions should be infrequent and then 
only when it would clearly serve the advantage of education; 
and on such rare occasions reasonable and proper care should 
be exercised by the institution. The campuses shall not be 
exploited as convenient outlets of discord and strife. 

We therefore provide that we the Trustees together 
with the administration of this Institution shall be held 
responsible and accountable for visiting speakers on our 
campuses. And to that end the administration will adopt rules 
and precautionary measures consistent with the policy herein 
set forth regarding the invitations to and appearance of visit- 
ing speakers. These rules and precautionary measures shall be 
subject to the approval of the Trustees. 

Form of the Bil l 


The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact: 

Section 1. G. S. 116-199, as the same appears in the 

1963 Cumulative Supplement of the General Statutes, is hereby 

amended by striking out the first four lines of said section 

and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

"S 116-199. Use of facilities for speaking purposes . — 
The board of trustees or other governing authority of each college 
or university which receives any State funds in support thereof, 
shall adopt and publish regulations governing the use of facilities 
of such college or university for speaking purposes by any person 

Sec. 2. G. S. 116-200, as the same appears in the 1963 
Cumulative Supplement of the General Statutes, is hereby amended 
by striking from line one thereof the words, "This article" and 
inserting in lieu thereof the words "Any such regulations". 

Sec. 3. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with 
the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, but neither the 
provisions of this Act nor the provisions of Article 22 of Chapter 
116 as the same appear in the 1963 Cumulative Supplement of the 
General Statutes, shall repeal or be construed to repeal any 
provision of Article 4 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. 

Sec. 4. This Act shall be in full force and effect 
from and after its ratification.